WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Investigation into a cartel of plasterboard manufacturers.
Date: 2002-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Commission, construction equipment, exchange of information, plaster, price agreement

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/59

The TDM was limited in time and scope. The segments eligible for aid under the Proposal were those
identified by the Commission’s investigation under Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December
1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to
in particular those
ensure the exercise of
established under the auspices of the WTO (2) hereafter Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR)
into Korean
shipbuilding practices, as suffering considerable injury and serious prejudice, caused by unfair Korean
practices. The aid under the TDM would, accordingly, have been limited to container ships and product
and chemical tankers.

the Community’s rights under international

trade rules,

The Commission was requested in November 2001 by the Community shipbuilding industry to update the
injury part of the investigations under the TBR. Once these investigations will have been finalised, the
results will be presented to the Council
(the TBR Committee). As to the current state of play, the
Commission can confirm that a revision of the Proposal would only be drawn up if this were warranted by
the findings of the updated TBR report.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.

(2003/C 28 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Investigation into a cartel of plasterboard manufacturers

Almost one year ago, it was announced that Commissioner Monti had begun an investigation into the
possibility that price agreements had been concluded between European plasterboard manufacturers. These
manufacturers were said to include Etex (Belgium), British Plasterboard (United Kingdom), Knauf
(Germany) and Lafarge (France). In mid-April 2001, the Commission informed the undertakings concerned
that an inquiry into their operations had begun.

Can the Commission indicate the results of its investigation? Has any conclusive evidence of the conclusion
of any price agreements actually been found? What penalty will the Commission impose if that is the case?

If the Commission is not able to indicate any results, why can it not do so? What stage has been reached
in the investigation, and when may we expect concrete results? What other aspects of the investigation has
the Commission still to carry out?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

As stated by the Honourable Member, the Commission, following press reports and subsequent press
inquiries, confirmed on 23 April 2001 (MEMO/01/149), that since the autumn of 1998 it had been
investigating the existence of a suspected price-fixing cartel
in the market for plasterboard (a plaster
product used in the construction industry). In April 2001 the Commission sent a statement of objections
to five companies. This followed a thorough investigation, which included inspections in the course of
1998 and 1999 at the premises of several plasterboard producers. The Commission indicated that it would
not at that stage reveal either the identity of the companies concerned or the details of the objections
raised against them.

The Commission’s investigation in the case is on-going. There is no fixed deadline for the conclusion of its
antitrust investigations, the duration of which is determined largely by the complexity of the case in
question, the exercise by the undertakings concerned of their rights of defence and by the internal
procedures of the Commission.

The Commission is, however, able to inform the Honourable Member that the parties involved have
already had access to the Commission’s file and have made use of their right to reply to the Commission’s
objections, including being heard orally at a formal hearing. The Commission expects to be in a position in
the near future to decide what further steps (if any) should be taken in the proceedings.